Nov 17,2024
Inter-county referee David Gough believes "his hands are tied around the language" of the proposed football rule changes that will go before a special GAA Congress on 30 November.
Last month, the GAA's Central Council approved the Football Review Committee's new rules to be voted upon in a fortnight's time.
The Jim Gavin-led FRC made two small changes to the proposed rules, with four points for a goal and two points for a 45 both dropped.
Whatever gets through Special Congress will be in for a trial period across club and county in 2025.
Central Countil can amend or rescind any rule changes made by the special congress if a motion is submitted by the GAA's management committee, a 15-person committee chaired by GAA president Jarlath Burns, the four provincial chairpersons and other elected and appointed representatives.
In all, there are about 50 motions pertaining to the rule changes, and it's the way in which the rules are presented which most irks Gough.
"When I read down through the 50 different motions that were in this 28-page document I found it shocking to see the manner in which the rules were written, the language, the lack of clarity in the motions that are going forward. The motions are going to be put forward in groupings, are all inter-linked and rely on each other and won't be debated individually.
"I was astounded, even though I have no issue with what the FRC have done insofar to their enhancements in how they wish to change the game or make it better. That is the scope that was given to them and their perogative.
"It's not my area of expertise but rules are my area and it's something I'm quite passionate about. I found it astonishing when I looked at this document from the GAA which is going towards Congress in a couple of weeks."
Gough went on to say that there was general dissatisfaction from referees body on the composition of the surveys that were given to them and that they only met the Jim Gavin-led FRC group once.
He continued: "I have spoken to a number of my colleagues on the senior referees' panel and some of us operate in very high level of education and research. That Delphi study (with GAA coaches) would not have got through any ethics test at university level.
"The answers were given to you. It wasn't a survey where you were allowed put in your own answers; it was given to you and you were asked to put them in order of preference. Tony McEntee (Sligo manager), at the time wrote a fantastic artice in the Examiner on 15 June in relation to it.
"The referees were not too impressed with that study. We met with the FRC, just once on 28 May. It wasn't an engagement; it was a briefing on what they were intending to do. We were asked for our opinions and we gave very strong opinions in what we would like to see.
"David Coldrick (four-time All-Ireland final referee) and I were very strong in our opinion that a number of FRC committees or review committees have brought in rules that have made the game more difficult for us to referee."
The Co Meath official then highlighted one of the rules: the 3 v 3 (a team must have 3 players in their own half at all times) and read out one of the motions pertaining to the proposed rule change: "For a team to have less than three outfield players in each side of the halfway line other than in circumstances described in 14, the penalty will be a free-kick from the centre point of the offending team's 20-metre line".
"To date the word 'offending' has never appeared in the rule book. The question now becomes which 20-metre line is the offending team's 20-metre line? Is it the 20-metre line they are defending or the 20-metre line they are attacking?"
Most of us would assume that it's the line they are defending, but Gough added: "The rule is not clear. If it said the defending line we would know which one it was - or the attacking line. It says the offending line, which is ambiguous. We don't know which line the free is from, now we understand what they mean but it is not clear.
"These are some of the amendments that are going to have to happen with the GAA's management committee."
And another rule was pointed out.
"We asked for the advantage rule to be changed," added Gough. "The advantage rule only pertains to aggresssive fouls; we are not allowed to give an advantage for technical fouls. We asked the FRC to include technical fouls in the advantage rule and they have not. They did not give a reason why they did not, nor do they have to but it would be nice if they did.
"It's one example of where refrees are not being helped and we are the ones that will suffer the blame when we implement the rules the way they are currently written.
"My hands are tied around the language of the rules. Language is so important, it is key to our understading and reflection on the rules. We can't referee the game on what we perceive the FRC's thoughts on what the game should look like. We have to referee to the language of the rules: we are duty-bound in the rulebook. There can be no ambiguity."
A spokersperson from the Football Review Committee was asked to appear on Saturday Sport but none was available.
